←back to thread

365 points lawrenceyan | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.207s | source
Show context
tzs ◴[] No.41874291[source]
OT: what's the state of the art in non-GM level computer chess?

Say I want to play chess with an opponent that is at about the same skill level as me, or perhaps I want to play with an opponent about 100 rating points above me for training.

Most engines let you dumb them down by cutting search depth, but that usually doesn't work well. Sure, you end up beating them about half the time if you cut the search down enough but it generally feels like they were still outplaying you for much of the game and you won because they made one or two blunders.

What I want is a computer opponent that plays at a level of my choosing but plays a game that feels like that of a typical human player of that level.

Are there such engines?

replies(17): >>41874316 #>>41874396 #>>41874461 #>>41875345 #>>41875558 #>>41875838 #>>41875964 #>>41876292 #>>41876599 #>>41877326 #>>41877679 #>>41877852 #>>41879309 #>>41880419 #>>41881695 #>>41883667 #>>41888465 #
1. 6510 ◴[] No.41880419[source]
It would be hilarious if they downgraded by being more aggressive. For example: It needs to score n points worth of aggressive moves that are not the best moves. After screwing up the position by n they can go back to playing the best moves again.

Otherwise you wouldn't really be learning anything useful. You would end up with an opening vocabulary that good players would easily punish. If you play crappy gambits leading to positions you know well the better players will think highly of you.

Best way to learn is to play the hardest possible engines and just take back moves when it becomes evident you've screwed up.